Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused in Murder Case; Relies on SIT Findings, Long Custody and Right to Speedy Trial
Case Name: Dimple v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 8 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-38618-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the bail petition of a woman accused in a murder case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, holding that continued incarceration was not justified in light of the Special Investigation Team’s findings, absence of active involvement in the offence, prolonged custody, and the constitutional right to speedy trial. The Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, particularly where the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future.
Summary: The petitioner was arrested in FIR No.21 dated 11 March 2025 registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, under Sections 103, 238, 239 and 249 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arising out of the death of a 19-year-old college student. The prosecution case initially alleged kidnapping and attempted sexual assault, followed by murder. During investigation, the petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused and remained in custody for over nine and a half months.
A Special Investigation Team headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was constituted, and its findings were placed on record. The SIT, after analysing CCTV footage, call detail records and witness statements, concluded that the deceased had voluntarily travelled to Maur Mandi to meet a co-accused, Mukul Mittal, with whom she had friendly relations. The material collected showed that the deceased was freely moving with the said co-accused and that an argument later took place between them near a canal, during which the co-accused pushed the deceased into the canal, resulting in her death. The SIT findings indicated that the petitioner was not present at the spot and had no active role in the commission of the offence of murder.
The State opposed the bail petition citing the gravity of the offence. However, the Court noted that nothing was required to be recovered from the petitioner, there was no material to suggest that she would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future. The Court also took into account that the petitioner was a woman and had already undergone substantial pre-trial incarceration.
Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court emphasised the presumption of innocence, the non-punitive nature of pre-trial detention, and the mandate of Article 21 guaranteeing a speedy trial.
Decision: The bail petition was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, cooperation in trial, intimation of change of address, and restriction on leaving India without prior permission of the court.